BG-86 Printing Analysis

General art-related discussion.
Post Reply
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:06 pm

bg-86 has long been a real problem for me. i have had to deal with several corrections, and now i am going to have to deal with yet another. the complexities of bg-86 are among the most difficult, but that said, i believe grant and i may have figured it out. i say "may" because it will remain uncertain until phil confirms or denies what may or may not be in the reprinting sample envelope he has or does not have of bg-86 index reprint.
grant and i spent almost an hour looking at the four separate states in which this poster exists. what we are most concerned with here are the three index variants. there is no controversy that the glossy version is the last version and definitely a reprint.
the index versions exist in three states. these states involve two printing plate flaws, one of which jacaeber noticed in 2002 and the other which i noticed in 2006. the flaw jacaeber noticed was a small yellow dot between the upper arms of the "e" in "one." the one which i noticed was a small yellow area along the top edge of the bottom curve of the "s" in "sept." there are also similar flaws in both "2s" of "22" but there are no known versions where they were corrected but the one on the "s" was not. for identification purposes to distinguish the separate the versions, i will refer only to the flaw in the "s" and the flaw in the "e," not the flaws in the "2s."
the first state of the poster as listed in my guide has both the yellow dot in the "e" and the yellow area on the "s."
the second state of the poster as listed in my guide has the yellow area on the "s" cleaned up by scratching the printing plate in this area so it now prints brown. the yellow dot in the "e" remains.
the third state of the poster as listed in my guide has the yellow area on the "s" cleaned up and the dot on the "e" cleaned up as well, also by scratching the printing plate so it will print brown in this flawed area, too.
i had thought and stated in my guide that all three of these index versions were originals. jacaeber believed that one of them was a reprint based on his access to printing records which i did not have.
it is now apparent that one of these three is indeed a reprint, but then the question becomes which one. i now believe that the reprint is the one which i describe as the second state listed above and in my guide. the following logic does seem to point strongly in this direction.
grant and i examined the film from which the various plates to print this poster were burned (the film remains in the possession of wolfgangsvault.), and we determined that the film would produce a plate that had both the flaws listed above, the yellow dot in the "e" and the yellow area on the "s." this means that the flaws were not corrected in any version by altering the film. it was the plate(s) that was/were altered.
this means that the first state index was the original. when that plate was burned, the flaws were there. it had to be scratched to correct the flaws. it would seem logical, and i had assumed that the printer noticed one flaw part way through the run, stopped the presses, scratched the plate to correct it and began printing again. after a while he noticed the other flaw, stopped the presses again and corrected that flaw and then resumed printing until the run was complete. we now know one of these three is a reprint so what i assumed was wrong, but which of the three is the reprint?
grant and i examined the three versions to see if we could find any characteristics to link two of them together. first we noticed that the first state and the third state seemed to have a closer relationship as to the color red. they matched better while the red on state two was different. the brown on one and three was not the same but may have represented more and less of the same ink on the plate. still colors were not satisfactory evidence. then we noticed that the cut size of one and three was identical, and two was substantially longer as well as a bit wider. it is remotely possible that on two separate occasions months apart a printer could set the cutter at exactly the same size, but it is really unlikely. then we noticed a printing zit, one of those things which usually is transitory in nature, on one and three. this zit is a tiny white dot located in the top of the pink section of the "o" in "cow." this appeared on all the copies in the vault of both the first state and the third state versions. it appeared on none of the second state versions. i have a copy of the second state version which has a white spot that is very different in shape in an area not far away from where the white spot on the first and third state versions is located, but it appears unrelated to the spot on one and three. an identical printing zit would not appear in separate printings months apart. one and three apparently were printed at the same time, before the concerts, so they are both originals.
since we now know that one of the three is a reprint, i believe that the above information means that the second state is the reprint.
the explanation for the unusual progression of the flaws is that each of the three times this poster was printed, new plates were burned. this has to be the case with the glossy stock version because that version is the same as the first state. both the yellow dot in the "e" and the yellow area on the "s" are again present. there is no way the first plate could have been reused on the glossy version because it could not have been "unscratched" for the glossy version, so other plates had to have been burned then. it is logical that when the second state was printed, new plates were burned then, too, and before any printing was done with them, the flaws on the "s" and the "2s" were corrected, but the flaw on the "e" was not corrected.
after all this what i would like to ask you, phil, is would you please ("pretty please with sugar on it" as they used to say in the schoolyards of new york city in the 1940s when i was in grade school when they really really wanted you to do something.) look in the index reprinting envelope and tell us, is the copy in the envelope the second state, that is does it have the yellow dot between the upper arms of the "e" in "one" but is the yellow area on the top edge of the bottom section of the "s" in september scratched over so that it prints brown and no yellow appears?
if this question is not clear to you (it is hard to phrase, and we want to be sure.), and you are willing to let me look at this one item only, please tell me, and i will come into the city to your gallery at a time of your choosing so this one question can be resolved. it would only take a few minutes of your time. if you do not have a sample of the index reprint, please post that information, too, so that i can use the information i have written here as the final conclusion on bg-86.
phil, i really appreciate your taking the time to read this whole very long and tedious post, but i am sure you are aware, sometimes research and scholarship of this sort is tedious.
piemel
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:19 pm

dude... you know what makes it tedious? putting all this within one thread.... your posts should be in a new thread for bg whatever the hell the number is... that way its easier to follow

ever heard of seperating paragraphs with blank lines?








it works




















interesting reading though








































that's all
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:29 pm

This might have been another one we've figured out....will have to check. [jSorry, but there's been a fair number .....]

Phil
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:04 pm

hi piemel,

i'm new at this.

in the future i will separate my paragraphs as you suggest.

i believe we ought to keep all these posts on reprints between bg-66 and bg-114 together on the same thread because they all relate to one common factor, reprinting dockets and reprinting samples phil cushway has been kind enough to begin sharing with us.

i still owe him a reply to a post he made two weeks ago about family dog material in my guide, and i will reply to it on the other thread about printing history.



thanks for your valid criticism and the witty manner in which is was presented.
piemel
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:14 pm

you



















are


w
e
l
c
o
m
































e
Post Reply